Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing’s founding member Veronica Meadows shares the results of a survey of businesses on the impact of professional licensing standards on their businesses. Learn why ARPL concluded that lowering licensing standards raises business risks.
GL Solutions helps governments run, grow and adapt. For more information about GL Solutions and our modernization service for regulatory agencies, visit us on the web at www.glsolutions.com. Or connect with us via Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn. Reach our host, Sam Hardin, at hardin@glsolutions.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing’s founding member Veronica Meadows shares the results of a survey of businesses on the impact of professional licensing standards on their businesses. Learn why ARPL concluded that lowering licensing standards raises business risks.
GL Solutions helps governments run, grow and adapt. For more information about GL Solutions and our modernization service for regulatory agencies, visit us on the web at www.glsolutions.com. Or connect with us via Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn. Reach our host, Sam Hardin, at hardin@glsolutions.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Veronica, for joining here today, I really appreciate that if you could just go ahead and start with your name and title and background and experience for me, that would be awesome.
Veronica Meadows:Sure, absolutely. Well, first of all, thanks, Sam for having me today. My name is Veronica Meadows. I am the Chief Strategy Officer for the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. And to make that a little easier, we can just say CLARB, because that is a mouthful. I've been with the organization for quite some time, 24 years. So I'm very familiar with the regulatory community and the landscape. Through my relationship at CLARB I have, you know, been fortunate enough to be exposed to not only the landscape architecture, regulatory community, but other related design disciplines as well, and quite frankly, across the entire regulatory community. So yeah, I I'm happy to be here and happy to share what I know about what's what's happening in the environment.
Sam Hardin:Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. So yeah, let's talk a little bit about this, this coalition or organization? You know, I refer to it as ARPL. But for those who don't know, it is the Alliance alliance for Responsible professional licensing. Can you talk a little bit about that organization, mission of the organization and how, how you got connected with them? Sure, absolutely.
Veronica Meadows:So first and foremost, just want to share that CLARB is a founding member of the Alliance for Responsible Professional Licensing (ARPL). ARPL is a national coalition of responsible licensing advocates. We're composed of professional and regulatory associations that represent highly complex technical professions, including architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and surveying and accountancy. The professions that we represent are all licensed in 50, plus US states and territories. And we all have established uniform standards for licensing, education, examination and experience, and proven national mobility models for the professions that we are engaged with. ARPL promotes a responsible, balanced approach to professional licensing. And our purpose really is to educate policymakers and the public on the importance of protecting licensing for professionals, or professions that have, you know, high public impact, we also work to develop and provide best practices, and, you know, practical solutions to help states solve occupation specific licensing challenges.
Sam Hardin:That's great. How can people get involved? Are there membership opportunities?
Veronica Meadows:Well, not necessarily in ARPL, but what I would say is where practitioners or members of the public have an opportunity to get involved is really through their localities. So if you are a licensed landscape architect, or architect or engineer, you know, serve on your local licensure board. And even members of the public can serve on licensing boards. And if you'd asked me 24 years ago, what a licensing board was, or that one existed out there, you know, to to serve my interests, I wouldn't have known that. So I think we have a long way to go to help the general public better understand, you know, kind of the vital role that licensing boards play. But there are opportunities to serve on these boards as a subject matter expert in a particular field, or as a member of the public. The other way professionals can really get involved is, you know, through their local professional society that that represents the profession that they belong to. And in terms of, you know, being engaged in ARPL, you know, you know, being aware of paying attention, you know, ARPL has lots of information out there available on our website at responsiblelicensing.org You can also find us at the at The ARPL on Twitter or X, LinkedIn and Facebook.
Sam Hardin:Well, that's a perfect segue because that that's how I came across you guys as I was just surfing the web. And you know, because I'm in this space. I'm interested in a lot of these stories and what's going on and in the landscape and I came across this study that you guys did, and it really caught my attention. So I kind of want to talk about that. And what I'm referring to is on your website, it looks like you conducted a study looks like it's back in July 24 of 2023, that examined and looked at how lowering licensing standards raises business risks. And so that really caught my attention. Because, you know, I work with regulators and, and agencies and boards and departments. And I'm kind of on the tech side of it. And so I'm helping them implement this type of stuff. And, and so I have exposure to it. But I thought it was really interesting that the study that you conducted is actually there's support from the business community for, you know, really not lowering licensing standards and actually keeping those intact and, you know, making sure they're in place and serve the public, as you mentioned earlier. So could you talk a little bit about that study? And, how did it come about? How was it conducted? Just a little bit of background.
Veronica Meadows:Yes, sure. So ARPL, commissioned the Benenson Strategy Group to survey, think about 600 decision makers for small and mid sized businesses about the impact of, you know, professional licensing on their businesses. And I mean, it was really quite clear that businesses overwhelmingly support responsible licensing standards. You know, the people, we spoke to are business owners that employ, architects, landscape architects, engineers, and then also the business owners that contract with these professionals. And what we found is that those that rely on highly complex and technical professions need assurance that their employees are qualified and competent. So for example, you know, 92% of business owners say that it's important to require, you know, a license to practice for professions like accounting, engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, surveying, you know, 90% of them said that professional licensing protects their customers and the public from receiving substandard work. You know, business owners also agree that professional licensing helps them hire qualified professionals and build strong business reputations. You know, 90% said, you know, it protects, enhances their their reputation. 92% said, you know, licensing helps them assess qualifications accurately in making hiring decisions.
Sam Hardin:Gotcha. Yeah. And so just want to be clear, for those who are listening. So when we talk about the standards, you touched on it a little bit earlier, but what we're specifically talking about, I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, are, you know, your educational requirements, maybe certifications that you hold, maybe study hours, hours in the field, things like that. We work with different dentistry boards, you know, and accountancy boards, and there are certain requirements in place to make sure that that person is qualified to do what they're saying. And that can be many different areas, you know, education and stuff like that. And so that's what we're talking about here, right, is making sure those individuals are qualified for whatever the requirements may be for that specific practice or, you know, we call occupational licensing, for whatever their their specific job function is, just making sure that those people have the the right qualifications and, you know, keeping that standard high as as, as we've talked about.
Veronica Meadows:Well, yes. So, the short answer is, yes. We are talking about the standards for education, experience and examination, and ensuring that those standards are, you know, rigorous enough to ensure public protection, but also, you know, have the built in flexibility to be equitable and accessible for practitioners entering the profession. But yes, public safety is the utmost outcome, that licensing, you know, is really put in place to ensure. And that is done through, you know, ensuring that individuals have the adequate educational background. They've gained experience in that area and that they've demonstrated competency through, you know, a professional licensing exam that says, I have the level of qualification that ensures that I can practice without endangering the public.
Sam Hardin:Gotcha. And a lot of those those standards will sometimes come from third parties; some of them will be directly administered by the board or by the agency. I know for the Board of Accountancy they have to pass a national exam. And so you know, it's kind of combining third party, whether it be exam, issuers or you know, other third party national organizations. So it can kind of be from within the board and agency, but also national practice and standards as well, right?
Veronica Meadows:Yeah, absolutely. In fact, I think for all of the ARPL professions, there is a standard, a, you know, nationally recognized licensing exam. So you can be assured that, you know, the person who tested for their landscape architecture license in California, took the same exam and had to meet the same, you know, exam standard as someone who took the test and became licensed in Florida. That is a national exam standard, for sure.
Sam Hardin:That leads me to my next question. What are some of the current trends that you're seeing in the regulatory space - as far as the standards? You know, I've heard terms thrown around, like universal licensing, joint compact, statewide contracts. How do you see those types of things fitting into this? Do you see that as kind of keeping the bar high? Or with universal licensing, could that be seen as a threat or making it too large or to wide in scope to to ensure standards? Are you familiar with some of those?
Veronica Meadows:Yeah, yeah, I am. And universal licensing is a very nuanced policy approach, and it definitely has some, you know, considerations that we would urge policymakers to really think about before making policy decisions that might actually have unintended consequences. I mean, unfortunately, what we're seeing is very broad brushed policies that are designed to kind of make, you know, to design wholesale solutions that don't necessarily consider the nuances of each licensed profession. Or you mentioned universal licensure, you know, which really attempts to reduce barriers to mobility, which is a good thing. And we support that. However, this particular trend and reform policy doesn't take into account that some professions already have national reciprocity models. So they, you know, when they implement these policies, they risk complicating those already kind of systems in place that are working, which confuses reciprocal applicants and causes unintended consequences to the public. Universal licensure kind of reduces the authority of individual licensing boards. It imposes a requirement that a board shall issue a reciprocal licensing through statute changes, instead of leaving the discretion to the board. It really doesn't differentiate between occupations and professions. And some states passed, you know, forms of universal licensing, which include residency requirements, which, you know, quite frankly, makes the pathway more cumbersome, then, you know, the existing models that are in place. And then in other places, you know, universal licensing language, you know, relied on substantially equivalency, you know, between states and effectively relying on the licensing boards to determine if an out of state applicant comes from a jurisdiction with requirements that would would satisfy, you know, the new states requirements. But so universal licensing is one trend that we've seen. Another that is that we've started to see is, is undermining the ability for a licensure board to do what they are charged to do, which is to administer and enforce licensure policies that are put in place to protect the public. Lots of review commissions stood up mandated sunset review. And in some of these efforts that we've seen, you know, really are to change the composition of the board or to consolidate boards. This can unfortunately result in the reduction or elimination of, you know, the really needed subject matter expertise on boards and puts the decision making, you know, authority in hands of, you know, state employees that really, quite frankly, aren't qualified to make those decisions. And there's also been attempts to remove board authority in the complaint and disciplinary process which, you know, that's really the the public's due process should they ever be harmed by it. practitioner.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, exactly. And that's kind of some of the feedback that I'm getting internally here from, from some of our clients is, that it really kind of complicates that landscape and can kind of muddy the waters, if you will, to make it really complicated for the board to carry out their initiatives. But then also for the public, it gets a little bit confusing when you try to implement some of these, the universal licensing and the joint compacts. And I think you touched on it perfectly. It's like in some cases, there's already pretty good regulations and processes around this already. And then we're trying to throw kind of these new systems in place that, that really just kind of make it more confusing, and you know, make it more confusing for the boards. It's like, oh, gosh, now I have to, you know meet these standards or requirements for something that we already had legislation in place for, or we already had standards in place for. And I think that was a great point that you mentioned. And that's what I'm hearing too.
Veronica Meadows:For sure.
Sam Hardin:Okay. Now, what are, I have to ask. So on the other side of the coin, do you get feedback? Or have you heard, you know, what's the opposition, say? Or what's the other side of this say? Or do you hear people say, well, gosh, you know, we have a shortage of, you know, teachers or police officers or, you know, nurses and, and, really, we need to lower the barriers of entry to get more professionals working essentially. Do you hear that type of feedback? Or?
Veronica Meadows:Yeah, certainly. And I think workforce development and, you know, building strong economies, you know, from state policy standpoint, is probably where they're coming from. So I think their intentions are good. But I think just not, you know, poor understanding of the systems and processes that are in place, you know, contributes to their attempt to solve those challenges. And, and I would actually argue that many of the national regulatory associations like CLARB, like, you know, and others for other professions are looking internally and working with their own members to say, okay, we know, licensure needs to maintain enough rigor to ensure public protection, but what can we do within our own systems and processes? You know, how can we look critically at, you know, the requirements and say, okay, how do we eliminate unnecessary friction while maintaining the rigor, and that often that often looks at, you know, we have to look at that by saying, okay, what friction in the process doesn't have a direct public protection outcome. And if we find those things, we have a responsibility to, you know, eliminate or reduce those things. And I think that's, you know, something that's a lesson that we can all learn, you know, within the regulatory community is to look to look critically at our, at our requirements at our systems our processes, and if there is friction there that doesn't have a direct public protection outcome, then we have to, we have to figure out how we're going to address that.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, yeah. What? I think that's a great point. And can you touch on that a little bit more? Like how, how do you, as regulators identify that? I mean, is it is it, you know, I can think of stuff from from the IT side that, you know, data analytics, stuff like that, will kind of bring that to light. But what are some of the ways that you and some of the members see like, oh, we might have a problem here, or maybe this this little portion is inefficient? Or we're getting a lot of people that are having a hard time fulfilling this requirement? Are there ways that you guys have implemented to to say, yeah, this is a trouble spot, or maybe we can make this better or easier for our population to adhere to this requirement?
Veronica Meadows:Sure, absolutely. Now, I can only speak for CLARB because I'm, you know, intimately knowledgeable about, you know, our systems and processes. But, you know, we went through that process a few years ago, we, you know, surveyed and, and spoke with licensing boards, and we said, Okay, where are you experiencing friction in the process? We spoke to, you know, individuals working, you know, through the licensure process, or had been through the licensure process and asked them where they, you know, met friction in the process. And we kind of took all of that information. We identified some key areas where we knew we were going to have to focus our efforts in making improvements. One was, you know, you know, varying requirements for licensure from state to state, because, you know, that creates confusion and frustration. We knew that we were going to have to address, you know, creating efficiencies in the time to licensure. And there were several areas where we, where we focused our efforts. And ultimately, what we came away with was we need to ensure that our licensing requirements are defensible, that they're rooted in data that shows us that these are the right requirements, and that they're, you know, equitable and accessible. And one of the ways that we have addressed that within the landscape architecture profession, has been recognizing that there are alternative paths to licensure, and recognizing that not everyone has access to, you know, a very expensive, you know, five year bachelor's program in landscape architecture, and recognizing that, you know, our, you know, demographics of our country is changing, and we want our profession to be representative of the communities that they, that they that they helped to build and support. And so for us, you know, recognizing and valuing alternative paths to licensure, I think, has been a big step forward in, you know, licensing for landscape architects. And, you know, we are working currently working with our member jurisdictions to, you know, revise their licensing requirements to also recognize alternative paths to licensure.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, I think that's great. And I, you know, getting the direct feedback from the licensee population, I think, is really important. And I think, you know, it's getting right to the source. And I was actually surprised how few boards that I've talked to, and agencies that actually do that. Or, you know, I can totally understand some of it maybe just be noise or, just, you know, stuff that's, that's not particularly helpful. But I, you know, I think it's important to listen to the licensee population. And where you can find those nuggets of truth or, you know, find the good ideas to implement those. And I think that's awesome that you guys are doing that. And I, and I think a lot of boards and agencies could find a lot of benefit in that. You know, it's not always easy to get that feedback. You know, the mechanism to try to set that up and to receive good feedback can be difficult to implement, you know? So, you know, I just commend you guys on that. That sounds great. And I, and I wish that more and I hope that more agencies and boards do that for the licensee population is like, what are their feedbacks? And, you know, just by having some of the general public members be a part of the board, is a great way too.
Veronica Meadows:Yeah, absolutely, very supportive of of public representation on licensing boards. It's a very necessary quality check, and, you know, check on ourselves and very, very helpful for the public at large.
Sam Hardin:Totally. Have you seen? Can you talk a little bit about, have you seen that technology can support that? Like, has it been able to support any of these initiatives, you know, with ways of of adhering to standards, but then also looking at ways to maybe support the licensee population? Have you seen trends in that or, or implementing some of them?
Veronica Meadows:Well, I think technology's integration into the regulatory space is, you know, a topic of significant importance and discussion. You know, I mean, we think about AI, you know, that's a logical, you know, technology solution. But, you know, the extent to which AI should influence regulatory matters is, you know, an issue of ongoing debate. It's, it's likely that AI can enhance the efficiency of regulatory, you know, operations. I think we see, you know, AI is a valuable tool that can streamline processes. But I think it's, it's really important to acknowledge and address, you know, the associated risks and limitations, too. And I just don't think we know enough about it yet. But there is a cautious and thoughtful approach to implementation of, you know, technology and specifically AI in regulatory work. And there's still a lot to, you know, there's still a lot of work ahead of us on that. So we're still very much learning there.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, it's very new. I mean, a lot of people that I've talked to are, are, you know, aware, but cautious. You know, it's very much in that kind of, you know, exploratory phase of what can this do? How could it support the population? And also the board? And what are ways to implement it? And we're, we're kind of feeling that out, currently, you know, to see. The perfect example - everyone likes to cling on to the chat bots, chat bots. And it's like, you know, yeah, that can be helpful. It can also, you know, just from being involved with different boards, it's like, most of the time when people want to ask questions or, you know, want to clarify things, they want to be heard. And it's hard to kind of, you know, the, the resolution that they're looking for is hard to come by through just a, you know, kind of a blanket answer or, you know, the, here's the statute, follow this.
Veronica Meadows:Right, right.
Sam Hardin:You know, that they're looking for somebody to kind of, like walk them through it and support them and, and really kind of hear what they're saying. And I'm like, I don't know, how, I've always kind of wondered how AI would support that, you know. I've actually been on calls with with end users, and, you know, the support that they're looking for can kind of go past just like, yes, I understand what the regulation says, or I understand what the directions say, but I have a specific question. Or, or, or I just maybe need to be heard. Or, you know, some of that emotion is taken away through AI, you know. It's strictly just, here's what it says, go down.
Veronica Meadows:No, no, for sure. I think the the human element is very valuable, especially when you're navigating, you know, your path to your career. And the human element is very helpful and very valuable. The other note that I'll make in terms of AI and chatbots is, you know, your response from that AI is only as good as the question you put in.
Sam Hardin:Yes, that is exactly correct. Yep. So that's such a good point there. So one thing I want to also talk to you about is I do know that, you know, most all agencies and boards are pretty much 100% fee funded. And so where do you see the trends on that with with, you know, the standards for licensure? I mean, you know, one of the ways I can think about it is if well, if you're lowering it, and you're making it too easy, isn't that taking away from the funds that the agency or board could be using to support the safety, professionalism of the community? You know, is that a, is that a threat? Or are you know, I just think about like, well, if if they're funded through, you know, people paying their fees, and if you, you know, lower that significantly, aren't you kind of just taking money away from a board that's overseeing this, and that's their, their, you know, their duty within the community to make sure that those people are, are safe and, and qualified?
Veronica Meadows:Well, that's an interesting question. Um, I, you're right. In many cases, or in most cases, the licensing boards are self funded. And what that means is, they are they, they use the funds that they collect through their licensing programs to, to run their businesses or to run that business. And so, so, in many cases, you know, state governments will say, well, you know, it costs so much to regulate this profession. Well, that that isn't necessarily the case. Because the the state itself is not funding the operation of that board. The individuals who are licensed in that jurisdiction pay fees, and those fees go to fund the operation of the board. So I think that's a little bit of a piece that that sometimes gets misstated or, you know, exaggerated in and when we talk about, you know, oh, reducing licensing will save the state money, and it will, you know, do all these great things. So, I, you know, I don't think that is necessarily true that reducing licensing is going to save states, you know, tons of money and that sort of thing, just basically the way that the licensing boards are structured within the within the system. As far as weakening licensing requirements, and its impact on the board, I think that it actually could overwhelm the board, you know, if you have individuals within a particular jurisdiction that are practicing that maybe shouldn't be you know. Then you begin to have you know, more significant you know, complaint issues or you know, more disciplinary action that needs to be taken. And you know, that can you know, that can create, you know, burden on boards. But from a from a financial standpoint, you know, whether you know the individual is licensed, you know, through initial licensure application with the board or through a reciprocal licensure application for the board, you know, they would have to go through that process.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, that's a great point. Okay. And then, so I wanted to ask you next, you know, what, what can the public or others do to better support protection? You know, if you're, if you're a part of the licensee population, is there anything that they can do to, you know, obviously, they have their own agency, and they can make sure that, you know, they're qualified. But is there anything that they can do to better support the board ot the community that's overseeing this? I think everybody's on board that you want, you know, physicians, dentists, you know, contractors, any of these professional licenses to be qualified. Is there anything that the general public can do or or to support?
Veronica Meadows:Again, I guess, I guess my recommendation would be to, you know, look at, you know, the professional licensing boards within your state, you know. Are there positions available, you know? If there are, you know, go through the, you know, whatever process, there may be, to, you know, put your name in the hat to serve. I mean, it's a great learning opportunity. It's a great opportunity to get more, you know, knowledgeable about the the licensing systems and processes that are in place that are there, you know, for specifically for public protection. So, that would be my recommendation for how the general public could get involved. I, as I mentioned, you know, before coming into the regulatory world, I had no idea that there were licensing boards out there, that were there specifically to protect my interests, and, and that were there, should I be harmed that I would have recourse and recourse outside of litigation. You know, that is that is extremely daunting, you know, and very expensive to go through a litigation process. So licensing boards are there, so that the public has recourse should they ever be harmed, and to set standards in place, so that hopefully, harm doesn't occur. So you know, getting involved serving on a licensing board. And we can do a better job, but you know, within the regulatory community of, of really promoting those opportunities to the public, so that they're aware that they exist.
Sam Hardin:Yeah, yeah. I think that's really valuable. Absolutely. Okay, well, you know, I mean, that that kind of wraps up my, my questions. You know, kind of the last thing I want to ask you is, what what are you guys working on? That's coming out in the future? Or do you guys have any events or any other, you know, I thought this study was was really insightful, and I loved reading about it, you guys, are you working on anything or have anything in the works that we can be looking forward to, to that's coming out any other studies or events?
Veronica Meadows:Well, ARPL will continue to be vigilant in our efforts to promote responsible professional licensing, through additional research. You know, we'll continue to educate the public on you know, the need for licensing, why it's important. And, and really begin to focus our efforts on helping the public better understand the role of licensing boards and the vital public protection role that they play. Again, I just encourage you and all your listeners to follow us at The ARPL on social media, and to visit to you know, visit our website at responsiblelicensing.org regularly because we are you know, that will be the first place that new research, new resources, new educational materials, will be, you know, will be available on the website.
Sam Hardin:Awesome. Definitely. Yeah, it is a wealth of knowledge. And I you know, I appreciate you jumping on Veronica and look forward to all the stuff that's coming out and and yeah, I'll be checking up on that.
Veronica Meadows:Great, Sam, thank you for having me.
Sam Hardin:All right. Thank you so much.
Veronica Meadows:Have a great day.
Sam Hardin:You too.